Destroyed: The C.I.A. Torture Tapes

Published: December 11, 2007

You don't need to have worked as an F.B.I. agent for 24 years as I did to know that shredding the evidence is always a clue.

What's the common thread underlying the C.I.A.'s destruction of videotaped harsh interrogations in the midst of ongoing legal inquiries; President Bush's last-minute commutation of Scooter Libby's prison sentence; the millions of White House e-mail records missing in violation of the Presidential Records Act; and the administration's current push to give immunity to the telecommunication companies suspected of engaging in illegal eavesdropping and surveillance of Americans?

Clearly, the only way the Bush gang can protect itself now from accountability is to suppress the truth. To do so, officials must destroy hard evidence and, at the same time, protect and immunize those who followed their illegal orders.

Their contempt for the rule of law cannot get much worse. They learned from Nixon's Watergate, and they're trying not to leave any Oval Office tapes around.

Coleen Rowley
Apple Valley, Minn., Dec. 7, 2007

To the Editor:

My father, Ferdinand Eberstadt, drew up the original bylaws for the C.I.A. He also did this for the Defense Department.

My father envisioned the C.I.A. as primarily a sort of academic organization that would funnel the information it accrued to other bodies, like, for instance, the Defense Department to act upon or not as they saw fit. The reasoning behind this was that the moment anyone takes action he is no longer a neutral observer, and there is great danger that the information he gathers is tainted.

He told me that the Dulles brothers, who were instrumental in developing espionage, profoundly disagreed with his approach. They used his framework but dropped its central premise. I often wonder what would have happened if the government then had recognized my father's wisdom. Would we be in the jam we find ourselves in now?

I also wonder what my father would feel if he saw what has become of his handiwork. I think I have a better idea of that.

Frederick Eberstadt
New York, Dec. 7, 2007

To the Editor:

The director of the C.I.A., Gen. Michael V. Hayden, claims that leaders of Congress had been briefed about the existence of the tapes and the decision to destroy them, though two top members of the House Intelligence Committee in 2005 deny having been informed. But what if General Hayden had done so? Should that make a difference?

Why does the C.I.A. or any other branch of the administration involved in interrogating terror suspects think that informing two select members of Congress would justify or sanitize what may be criminal acts?

With the news that the C.I.A. was ''advised'' by the White House, the Justice Department and senior members of Congress not to destroy the interrogation videotapes (front page, Dec. 8), the question arises as to who is running our country.

William Schreiber
Cambridge, Mass., Dec. 8, 2007

To the Editor:

In ''C.I.A. Destroyed 2 Tapes Showing Interrogations'' (front page, Dec. 7), unnamed officials are reported to have asserted that ''the tapes were destroyed in part because officers were concerned that tapes showing harsh interrogation methods could expose agency officials to legal risks.''

That legal jeopardy is the proper consequence of illegal actions.

My public servants should be more concerned with operating within the law, and less concerned with not getting caught. If the C.I.A. has been misleading Congress and destroying evidence of its wrongdoing, it is a scandal of the first order and a violation of the people's sovereignty on which our government rests.

Barry Levine
Lafayette, Calif., Dec. 7, 2007

To the Editor:

It is my understanding that treaties and agreements are two-way streets. The Geneva Convention should be valid only if both parties agree to the conditions and requirements. The notion that we will agree whether our enemies comply or not is na? and illogical.

When the barbarians quit publicly cutting off heads and disgracefully dragging Americans through the streets and publicly defacing and burning the bodies of Americans, quit hijacking and flying our citizens into buildings, wear uniforms and quit performing far worse forms of torture than simulated drowning, perhaps they can expect decency in return.

You don't offer civilized behavior as an absolute when military information that may save American lives or lead to victory can be extracted from thugs who have no respect for the rules of war. When fighting ruthlessness, polite doesn't cut it.

Dale Netherton
Farmington, Iowa, Dec. 9, 2007

To the Editor:

Re ''In Arrogant Defense of Torture'' (editorial, Dec. 9):

In a little over a year this administration will hand over the reins to another. We as a country, meanwhile, must grapple with the change in political discourse that it has wrought.

I do not understand what officials were trying to accomplish when they introduced torture as an acceptable method of interrogation, pre-emptively invaded a country, superseded international law by building the Guant?mo Bay detention center, suspended the rule of law by denying prisoners the right of habeas corpus, and institutionalized fearmongering and chest pounding as new American values.

Unfortunately, these policies that for most of our 200-plus-year history would have been anathema to the vast majority have gained a toehold. Today, coffeehouse political debate is polarized, with moderate positions a rarity.

My fear is that this administration and its apologists have pushed the ball much farther down the field than we average Americans realize. They have changed the political discourse for many years to come. I long for the return to civility and common sense.

E. L. McKenzie
Arlington, Tex., Dec. 9, 2007

To the Editor:

Not only do those who arrogantly defend the use of torture display disdain for federal laws and international agreements, not to mention dubious moral character, they also display a lack of common sense.

It should be obvious to everyone that torture is an interrogation tactic that yields only what the interrogators want to hear, whether it happens to be the truth or not.